Good points all around. Glad to see this hasn't turned into what seems to be the normal name calling pissing matches that go on here.

I think the culture of our country to ignore mental illnesses plays a large part in all of this (mass killings). We see homeless people and think of them as lazy or unmotivated, but a shockingly high percentage of the homeless population is mentally ill, and that illness has led to their homelessness. But when we see someone that's not what we think.

Another thing I haven't yet seen addressed in this thread so far is the influence of drugs and gangs on gun violence. I keep hearing people (friends on FB and other places) throwing out the 12,000 Americans making it seem like all we do is go around offing each other. How much of that number is related to drugs/gangs? Look at Mexico for instance. Nearly all the violence in that country is purely because of the drug trade. You have the occasional outlier such as the Aurora and Newtown cases, but I'm willing to bet the large portion of gun deaths are related to gangs and drugs.

One other thing to think of relating to that is the fact a portion of the people committing gang and gun violence have already been arrested and served time for crimes in the past and can't legally own a gun. Yet they still find ways to obtain them and commit their crimes.

I think this is the X factor for the US compared to the other countries listed (UK, AUS, etc). The US is the single largest drug market in the entire world and supports a multi-billion dollar industry. These people will do whatever it takes to protect their money and inventory. The UK, Australia and other countries also have drug problems, but not anywhere near the level we have in the US.

One more random food for thought that popped into my head. I know there are some flaws with the numbers because some people own multiple guns, but hear me out. Lets say we use 230,000,000 as the number of guns in the United States that are owned legally (I think MPower gave that number earlier). If we for arguments sake say that each of the 12,000 people killed by guns in the US were killed by a different weapon (so 12,000 weapons used), that means that only 0.004% of the guns in the US are used to commit a crime (assuming all 12,000 deaths are criminal and not accidental). So 99.996% of the gun owners in the US are lawful owners. Why should they be punished for the few who refuse to follow the laws?

According to published stats, it's actually 0.000047 homicides per gun in the states. There are about 45 other countries on the ranking list with a higher rate than the US. However, it's actually less than that because that likely only takes into account the legally purchased guns. I'm quite sure the estimated number of illegal firearms in this country are not included in that figure.

This is a telling interactive map... i can't imagine that it's much different in other major cities.

Anything that causes an unplanned death is the same in my book because the result is the same, and unplanned death.

Might be the same in your book, but the courts see things differently.
The outcome may be the same (unplanned death of loved one), but a death arising from negligence (fiddling with GPS unit, not paying proper attention, and hitting someone) is not punished the same as a death arising from premeditation and planning. (Authorities discover when reading social media posts or scouring your PC that you had planned the crash for days, monitoring the targets travel patterns, and deliberately chose to ram your loaded van into their car at a certain place).

I respect your right to believe that intention is irrelevant, but it must be said that many others disagree. I think that's a big part of why nobody ANYWHERE is calling for a ban on cars, like they do with guns. Yes there are unwanted side effects, but for the most part those side effects are not premeditated, and the overall benefit to society outweighs the penalties.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MP0WER

But because many people don't care to have or use firearms; they don't care that their argument is illogical. They just have something to focus their anger on and do so without looking at it objectively.

Not sure it's illogical, it's simply a matter of recurring, ongoing personal experience with the benefit of one device (the car) which almost everyone shares, and the more abstract benefit (resist government tyranny or prevent a murderer), that people may understand theoretically, but cannot relate to it as vividly as the car benefit because neither they, nor anyone in their immediate circle of friends, has personal experience with those benefits on a daily basis.

Remember, it's sometimes useful to gain perspective by looking outside your immediate surroundings. While many modern industrialized countries have weapons bans that some here might even call draconian, or an oppressive police state, people in those places seem to be living happy fulfilled lives, and they dont even lobby their own governments for a relaxation of gun rules to match the United States.

Lest you think that is because they have all been brainwashed into accepting the idea that the gov should regulate all danger from their lives in a nanny state, well they dont seem to be lobbying for a ban on autos either, even tho they kill more than guns do.

I dislike the intentional dishonesty of the anti-gun crowd. They will use the emotion of the moment where the problem to be solved is used to achieve grander goals. If we focused on the issue at hand we would be talking about the insane and their access to weapons. But they aren't, they are extending the argument, using the dead children to crank down on guns in general. It's intellectually dishonest and cowardly but, it will probably work.

My point is that the reason people call out for gun bans / restrictions is because there is an emotional connection due to the intent of the gunman. The same emotional connection can be found in people who recently lost someone to a drunk driver, but not so much if it's just a normal "accident". If there is someone or something to blame people will jump on it. If this person ran in this school with a samurai sword and killed as many people there wouldn't be anyone calling for a ban on samurai swords. But because many people don't care to have or use firearms; they don't care that their argument is illogical. They just have something to focus their anger on and do so without looking at it objectively.

If your wife or child or anyone you loved or cared about was killed in a "normal accident" would the loss be any less for you than if it was a drunk driver instead? Would you be any less emotional? For me the answer is no. If you are honest with yourself the answer would probably be no too.

If that same person ran into the school with a samurai sword (or even 3 samurai swords) he couldn't kill 27 people in 10 minutes like he did with the guns he used.

I can also say with certainty if there were as many mass murders committed with samurai swords as there are with guns we would be debating regulation and access to samurai swords.

The reason people focus emotion and attention on these incidents is because they happen so often and because they are so traumatic and devastating for the people involved as well as the communities in which they occur. The destructive potential and the potential for unspeakable carnage and violence from the types of guns used in most mass murder shootings is unbelievable and frankly rediculous. That is one reason many people are so emotionally opposed to them. There is nothing illogical about wanting to examine all the common elements of these incidents when they occur in an effort to try to prevent them from happening. There are several important elements to examine but mass murder shootings obviously can't happen without guns.

And while it may be true that a person whose life is affected by gun violence might be less objective about the subject of guns and regulation, it could also be argued that as a gun owner you might become less objective too.

I dislike the intentional dishonesty of the anti-gun crowd. They will use the emotion of the moment where the problem to be solved is used to achieve grander goals. If we focused on the issue at hand we would be talking about the insane and their access to weapons. But they aren't, they are extending the argument, using the dead children to crank down on guns in general. It's intellectually dishonest and cowardly but, it will probably work.

If someone is not happy that innocent 6 year olds get shot, chances are pretty good they are unhappy that 10000 others die from gunshots each year too, even tho it's not part of a mass shooting. Wanting all guns scaled back is hardly contrary to their own goals.

It's not like someone only dislikes mass shootings, but secretly approves of the other thousands of gun homocides a year that do not occur in a group setting, so they only speak up after a mass incident.

Even if you could wave a magic wand and somehow guarantee that everyone who is diagnosed as clinically insane by todays standards could not even touch a gun, that wouldnt stop all the other shootings, because not all shooters in a 1-on-1 battle would be consistenly, reliably categorized as insane based on any test you could somehow administer against their wishes. Crimes of passion while drunk or something would not be stopped, unless the person was in that state while tested for for their right to touch a gun.

I seriously doubt that Australia or Canada has a fraction of the homocide rate because they have fewer insane people.

If someone is not happy that innocent 6 year olds get shot, chances are pretty good they are unhappy that 10000 others die from gunshots each year too, even tho it's not part of a mass shooting. Wanting all guns scaled back is hardly contrary to their own goals.

It's not like someone only dislikes mass shootings, but secretly approves of the other thousands of gun homocides a year that do not occur in a group setting, so they only speak up after a mass incident.

Even if you could wave a magic wand and somehow guarantee that everyone who is diagnosed as clinically insane by todays standards could not even touch a gun, that wouldnt stop all the other shootings, because not all shooters in a 1-on-1 battle would be consistenly, reliably categorized as insane based on any test you could somehow administer against their wishes. Crimes of passion while drunk or something would not be stopped, unless the person was in that state while tested for for their right to touch a gun.

I seriously doubt that Australia or Canada has a fraction of the homocide rate because they have fewer insane people.

It's dishonest. Consider this--the day before this horrible incident there was zero chance that the "assault weapons" ban would be revived. Now, thanks to the emotion of the moment, a law that will have no impact whatsoever on the deranged and mass murder, will likely be passed. Understand that I'm not in knee jerk opposition to some action but I prefer we start from ground truth and with specific, measurable objectives. Right now this is so emotionally charged and so fact-less an atmosphere that none of us will get what we need out of this.

Here's my bet. I, a law-abiding gun owner of no danger to the innocent, who takes prudent safety measures will end up having my rights impinged upon for no rational reason and the measures imposed will not solve anything.

If your wife or child or anyone you loved or cared about was killed in a "normal accident" would the loss be any less for you than if it was a drunk driver instead? Would you be any less emotional? For me the answer is no. If you are honest with yourself the answer would probably be no too.

I think i didn't make my point clear enough. I'm saying that i personally feel no different by the means in which my loved one was killed. My devastation comes from loosing their companionship for the rest of my life, not the way in which they departed. I think for many, most certainly for the several people i asked today, they would be filled with emotions ranging from resentment to hatred for the drunk driver, mugger, or shooter who took their loved one from them. Where as if it was an "accident" they admitted that they would be more at peace with their loved one's departure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

If that same person ran into the school with a samurai sword (or even 3 samurai swords) he couldn't kill 27 people in 10 minutes like he did with the guns he used.

This is debatable, but i see no sense in it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

I can also say with certainty if there were as many mass murders committed with samurai swords as there are with guns we would be debating regulation and access to samurai swords.

No offense, but i don't see how you can make these statements with such certainty. If there were 230,000,000 swords in america your statement would likely hold true. If the number of swords in america is what it currently is, i would doubt your statement would be true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

The reason people focus emotion and attention on these incidents is because they happen so often and because they are so traumatic and devastating for the people involved as well as the communities in which they occur. The destructive potential and the potential for unspeakable carnage and violence from the types of guns used in most mass murder shootings is unbelievable and frankly rediculous. That is one reason many people are so emotionally opposed to them. There is nothing illogical about wanting to examine all the common elements of these incidents when they occur in an effort to try to prevent them from happening. There are several important elements to examine but mass murder shootings obviously can't happen without guns.

The bold statement is true and most gun owners are open to this, but that's not was is happening. There is an emotional knee jerk reaction to get rid of guns or ban certain types of weapons. By my calculations, about 90% of mass shootings end with the shooter taking their own life. Lets talk about that first. Because clearly if someone is set on suicide, they are not quite mentally stable. Maybe at the same time we're talking about that, we can begin the ban on high capacity magazines. I and the vast majority of gun owners see no reason for 50 or 100 round magazines. This seems like a reasonable starting point to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

And while it may be true that a person whose life is affected by gun violence might be less objective about the subject of guns and regulation, it could also be argued that as a gun owner you might become less objective too.

The number of people affected by gun violence is minuscule compared to the number of people who are not affected by gun violence.

I'm not saying things can't be done to make things safer for citizens. I'm saying that we can't regulate out crazy. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. No amount of legislation will ensure someone won't find a rifle or pistol to use in a shooting rampage. No amount of legislation will ensure someone won't bomb a building killing 168 people (19 of them children). No amount of legislation will ensure a group of people won't hijack planes to use as weapons of mass distraction. Depression, mental problems, hate, evil or what ever we call it will ALWAYS find away to create chaos, carnage, death and distraction.

However, small amounts of legislation can vastly change and impinge on the rights of law abiding citizens. Remember that 99.9953% of gun owners don't commit gun homicides.

__________________

"There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice. -Charles de Secondat"

By my calculations, about 90% of mass shootings end with the shooter taking their own life. Lets talk about that first. Because clearly if someone is set on suicide, they are not quite mentally stable. Maybe at the same time we're talking about that, we can begin the ban on high capacity magazines. I and the vast majority of gun owners see no reason for 50 or 100 round magazines. This seems like a reasonable starting point to me.

I won't debate your other points because I don't believe any further debate will lead to concurrence or solutions. But for the record there are typically knee jerk reactions on both sides.

I want to focus on your above statements which I agree with. This is where those on both sides of the issue seem to have common ground. Perhaps this is a reasonable starting point that can lead to sensible regulation which I believe is needed.

"MPOWER - I and the vast majority of gun owners see no reason for 50 or 100 round magazines. This seems like a reasonable starting point to me."

Agreed 100%, however legislatures will want to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds which is the same in Cali. Yes, mfg's have found a way around this but I prefer 30 round mags with my AR15. 10 is fine with my Mini 14. Either way, it is a moot point since the majority of experienced users can switch mags in a couple seconds and get back on sight.

I won't debate your other points because I don't believe any further debate will lead to concurrence or solutions. But for the record there are typically knee jerk reactions on both sides.

I want to focus on your above statements which I agree with. This is where those on both sides of the issue seem to have common ground. Perhaps this is a reasonable starting point that can lead to sensible regulation which I believe is needed.

I agree about knee jerk reactions on both sides. Just try and buy a decent quality 30 round magazine or any variant of an AR15 right now.

I think that 50-100 rd mags should be the first thing to go. They surely can't be comfortable to shoot with all that weight hanging off the bottom of the rifle. But i do believe that kids are some what enamored by them for some reason. When i was younger, i was. I even had a 50rd mag but for the gun i had at the time. However, the only option was a 50rd or 100rd mag. It was cool until i realized that i didn't want to put 50 rounds through the same paper target. Sold it during the last high cap mag ban and bought a bunch of pre-ban mags for my other pistols.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken1137

"MPOWER - I and the vast majority of gun owners see no reason for 50 or 100 round magazines. This seems like a reasonable starting point to me."

Agreed 100%, however legislatures will want to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds which is the same in Cali. Yes, mfg's have found a way around this but I prefer 30 round mags with my AR15. 10 is fine with my Mini 14. Either way, it is a moot point since the majority of experienced users can switch mags in a couple seconds and get back on sight.

that would be unfortunate, but likely. Funny how we let Cali lead the way, like their gov makes awesome decisions....

__________________

"There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice. -Charles de Secondat"

Has anybody ever heard of a government legislating peace? Yeah me neither. I sure have heard of them fcuking everything up though. How about we get sh!t straight at home and let the government worry about what the Constitution tells them to worry about.